R (on the application of Ali) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Somali national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, granting her five years to remain in the United Kingdom and subsequently affirming that decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the substance of the Secretary of State's duty under of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 had been discharged by the granting of five years' leave to remain in the circumstances. Further, there was no proper basis for suggesting that the supplementary decision had been a pretence or had otherwise been coloured by the judicial review proceedings.

London St. Andrew's College v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Education. The claimant educational institution sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's revocation of its Tier 4 licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been failings in the management and administration of the claimant which had meant that specific and general duties to comply with the grant of highly trusted sponsor status had not always been met. The Secretary of State had been entitled, on that basis, to reach the decisions she had.

R (on the application of McCarthy and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that both of Directive 2004-38 and art 1 of Protocol No 20 had to be interpreted as not permitting a member state to require, in pursuit of an objective of general prevention, family members of a Union citizen who were not nationals of a member state and who held a valid residence card, issued under of Directive 2004-38 by the authorities of another member state, to be in possession, pursuant to national law, of an entry permit, such as the European Economic Area family permit, in order to be able to enter its territory.

Secretary State for the Home Department v AJ (Angola); Secretary State for the Home Department v AJ (Gambia)

Immigration Appeal. The proceedings concerned two appeals, both of which raised issues regarding the proper approach for the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) to adopt in dealing with deportation of foreigners who had committed crimes while in the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal in respect of each of the UT's determinations. It held that, in each case, the UT had erred in law, in having failed to interpret and apply the new Immigration Rules and had failed properly to balance the factors relevant to an assessment under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

R (on the application of Chirairo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Zimbabwean national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing his application for discretionary leave to remain on the basis that it was inconsistent with that in his sister's case. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision had not explained the distinction between the claimant and his sister, who had been given leave to remain. Further, the Secretary of State had amounted disregarded of the statutory appellate procedure by failing to follow or appeal a judge's order.

R (on the application of Azizi and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant family of Afghani nationals, including five children, sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's grant of discretionary leave to remain, rather than indefinite leave to remain. They contended that the Secretary of State had unlawfully failed to consider of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, although the Secretary of State's decision had been unlawful, it was not remotely likely that a different approach would have been taken if s 55 of the Act had been considered and the Secretary of State's error had not been material.

R (on the application of Bibi and others) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, refusing them indefinite leave to remain, but granting them discretionary leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was nothing irrational about the Secretary of State's decisions and that her decision to grant discretionary leave to remain, rather than indefinite leave to remain, had been a lawful decision.

Mensah v Salford City Council; Bello v Salford City Council

Local authority Statutory powers. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's policy for calculating the amount of financial assistance to be provided, under of the Children Act 1989, by reference to the amount that the Secretary of State would provide to a failed asylum seeker and his dependants. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the policy had been lawful. Further, although the authority had failed to appreciate the claimants' derivative rights of residence, as the primary carers of a British national child, that had not invalidated the authority's policy or the individual decisions in the claimants' cases.

Ganesharajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Detention. The claimant sought damages for unlawful immigration detention for four years and seven months. The defendant Secretary of State conceded unlawfulness as to the first five days, when he had not been given notice of detention and two months, in which an unlawful blanket policy had been applied. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant substantial damages of 500 for the first five days and nominal damages of 100 for the further two months. No further period of detention had been unlawful.

R (on the application of Kabashi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Leave to remain. The claimant Kosovan national challenged the validity of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to remove him, but only grant an out-of-country right of appeal, to refuse leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain, and not to apply para395C of the Immigration Rules. The Administrative Court held that three of the claimant's grounds were without merit. His other ground was resolved by the Secretary of State's undertaking that, if a decision to remove was to be taken, the claim would not be certified as ill-founded so as to deprive the claimant of an in-country right of appeal.